Peter Reynolds and the Investigative Journalist Who Never Was

So, Peter Reynolds sent me an email in December threatening to sue me again. But let me tell you about my week.

(For people new to this, I have a helpful Peter Reynolds: An Overview page covering my previous interactions with Peter Reynolds, the leader of CLEAR – Cannabis Law Reform)

I went for some legal input on Wednesday to confirm what I already thought. I obviously won’t and can’t share that here, but the general gist was “LOL”. It’s also become apparent that, if we consider Peter Reynolds a public figure, then it is totally unacceptable for him to be threatening bloggers who have been critical of him with legal action. As Julie Burchill now well knows, calling someone terms like homophobic, racist, and a hypocritical liar on the basis of their writings is pretty much standard for mainstream discourse, and where on earth would we be as a society if politicians could just silence their critics with a pissed letter because they didn’t like their genuinely held, reasoned opinions? The concept is ludicrous.

However, on my way back, I got an email from the University of Manchester Students’ Union asking for us to take down their address from the Re:Vision Drug Policy Network website. And this is where my story really starts.

Now, to give you some context here, the Re:Vision Drug Policy Network was set up by me and some other people in an attempt to mobilise young people against the drug war in 2011. We were based in Manchester and I was at university at the time, so when we set up a limited company to constitute it and gotten recognition of our charitable nature from HMRC, we registered it to the UMSU address so it wouldn’t matter where any of us were living, we’d still get post. However, in June of last year we lost some really key people for personal reasons that really scuppered a lot of our plans, and so while we were trying to work out what best to do, we let the company lapse so we didn’t have any legal responsibilities and were free to negotiate with other groups about potential mergers and things. Re:Vision Manchester stuck around as a student society but the person-in-charge forgot to register it, so we decided to move the inbox.

And so I’d already removed most of the references to addresses and company registration numbers and things from our website when I updated it, so this email was a bit weird. I wrote back and said that I’d evidently missed the page he had named and asked how he had found our website. We’re not very big so it’s not something that you’d just happen across by accident unless you were already interested in the subject.

Then, waiting for that, I got an email from Manchester Trading Standards also wanting to know more about our registration with Companies House. I sent them back our former company number (07576992), and starting to seriously wonder what was going on.

The UMSU guy wrote back on Friday to say that a “James Clay”, who claimed to be a journalist, had rung up to say he was doing an investigation into the “financial affairs” of Re:Vision and wanted to know more about our charitable status, and that he had given his phone number. The UMSU guy suggested that I call him.

Now, the “financial affairs” of Re:Vision are exclusively funded by its members and excluding in-kind donations, the turnover in our bank account was in the hundreds last year, so this was a little fucking suspicious, to say the least. And there isn’t, according to Google, a journalist called James Clay. I decided to call the number, but I figured I’d record whoever was on the other end on Skype. So I was setting that up on my computer, when it occurred to me to Google the number.

As it turns out, the phone number of “James Clay” is the official CLEAR – Cannabis Law Reform press line. Oh look, I have a screenshot.

So Peter Reynolds is now apparently impersonating journalists using official party communication channels to dig up what he thinks is dirt about groups I’m associated with now. Nice.

(As an aside, Peter Reynolds seems to have a real problem restraining himself from using the CLEAR press line to attack people, I mentioned this situation to Chris Bovey, the former webmaster of CLEAR and now of NORML UK, and he sent me this mobile phone screenshot of a SMS message he was sent in March 2012 from the same official CLEAR press number:

)

But I didn’t feel that that was a high enough standard of proof. Peter Reynolds is of course notorious for claiming that inconvenient screenshots of his own blog or emails he’s sent others are forgeries. I therefore asked a friend to call the number.

The recording is below.

Here is the Music Player. You need to installl flash player to show this cool thing!

(For mobile users and people on computers without sound, you can read a transciption of the call here.)

I don’t think I need say any more.

Within half an hour of this conversation occurring, the number I had been given as James Clay’s was gone from the CLEAR website:

UPDATE: Politics UK republished my article, and asked for and received a response from Peter Reynolds, which you can read there. His repetition of the claim that Re:Vision is masquerading as a company and a charity was already debunked in this article, but I did just want to clarify one point with everyone else, and that is that the Charity Commission only registers charities with a turnover of more than £5000. If you have an income below this but your aims are non-profit and for the benefit of the public, you are still a charity. It’s therefore still accurate to call Re:Vision a charity – we generally choose not to do so because this is a confusing point for people.

UPDATE 31st January:: All Politics UK admins were banned from Facebook this morning, one of the lead admins of the London Cannabis Club Facebook page was banned yesterday for three days, and the original SoundCloud recording of “James Clay” was made private because “someone’s voice has been used on these recordings and uploaded without their consent” (did James Clay call them up?).

What I don’t get with people like her and the other small group of people who constantly snipe is why they are so utterly obsessed with trying to attack PR, attacking him is the most important thing in their lives it seems. How they can be so obsessed with anything is frankly beyond me – and you’re not that much better given your enthusiasm to spread this rubbish.

In my world, I have many many issues, I don’t have time to dig loads of crap about individuals. Not only don’t I have time, I don’t have the motivation to do so, I’m just not that petty, I’m just not obsessive. Indeed I don’t hold grudges against people, I move on and if need be, ignore them.

What do I think about it? I think it’s petty at best, at worst a deliberate attempt to undermine a cannabis law reform campaign – and that I do object to.

Handbags at dawn indeed. Pathetic, and somewhat sad.

I’ll say one more thing though, which I do find worrying and here I’m quite serious. One of the effects of cannabis prohibition supporters are often keen to promote is, they claim, that cannabis produces just this sort of obsession, rigid thinking if you like. I have always dismissed that as just another prohib claim, but from what I’ve seen over the past year I’m not so sure now and I do find that depressing.

PR and CLEAR are sure as hell not your enemy. Put you time and effort into fighting the people who really are out to get you.

Well, Derek, you need not worry, because contacting people masquerading as a journalist to try and make trouble for me is a step too far as far as I’m concerned, and I’m going to be looking into obtaining a restraining order against Peter Reynolds today. I’ll let you know how it goes.

To clarify. I wrote those comments to facebook because I was asked fro my opinion by someone on there. I accept of course that anything posted to Facebook is in the public domain and I have no objection to anyone quoting my words. If people feel motivated to discuss my views on the world that’s fine by me.

What I object to, which is what has happened here, is that the owner of this blog has allowed someone to post the comment I made to facebook here under my name. I had no wish to engage in any debate on this authors blog.

I am objecting to the fact that someone faked my identity to make a post here and that the blog owner, Sarah McColloch, has refused to remove this impersonated post despite being aware of the situation. This is actually ironic as Sarah’s blog was attacking someone for impersonation and frankly makes something of a sick joke of her blog.

What follows below are numerous attempts by me to get Sarah to remove the impersonated post, a couple of posts from her refusing to do so and a lot of mostly offensive replies from a few people.

“To clarify the clarification that I clarified earlier, I would just like to clarify that I wish to clarify the clarification that I clarified earlier by making it sure that I have clarified the clarification that I clarified by clarifying my position clearly. Do I make myself CLEAR?”….

Derek Williams has been doing the same ever since the non-cannabis-using [tsk] decided to crown himself as leader of UKCIA (which is when everyone else abandoned that site). He has an amazing skill of being able to write paragraphs of waffle while purposefully missing the points raised towards him.

He’s well known within the cannabis community of being a troll, and a deluded bell-end.

You’ve gotta laugh, Peter Reynolds, leader of CLEAR, impersonates a journalist to try to dig up dirty on the owner of this blog, so then, Derek Williams, Peter Reynolds’ right hand man, publishes a comment on Facebook defending Reynolds’ actions, yet when his words are reproduced on this blog, even though it’s evidently obvious to anyone more intelligent than Derek Williams (pond life?), the words attributed to him were his words, just he didn’t give permission for his words to be re-published on this blog, he then complains that it is wrong for someone to fake an identity, even though in this case no false words have been attributed and it’s fucking obvious they are a reproduction of Derek’s words written on Facebook previously defending Reynolds … fuck me I’m confused … are you?

How long can Reynolds continue in his “position”, when he is doing his damnedest to undermine other reform groups work?….He should have faded into oblivion long ago after the racist/bigoted opinions he expressed first came to light,as well as informing on activists to police on very spurious allegations,…..The man is a muppet but as usual he sends his “damage limitation” spokesman Derwick Williams to yet again defend the indefensible…Clear is a toxic outfit, and now folks can see “why” for themselves…..Great article Sarah…once again ..

Whilst I do appreciate Peter Reynolds efforts to bring the cannabis issue to the forefront, I do find many of his tactics to be very questionable. This seems to be one of those cases of Mr Reynolds using some of those questionable tactics. As a matter of putting forward that I hold no bias, I can confirm that I am a formerly fully paid up member of CLEAR, I asked that my membership be terminated some time ago when some of Mr Reynolds tactics came to light. Again, I appreciate Mr Reynolds efforts and indeed those efforts of other members of CLEAR. For better or worse, the questionable tactics used have meant that the cannabis issue has been driven forward in this country in a very big way. It seems a great shame that others are suffering at the hands of Mr Reynolds and I do hope that either he will recognise that these sorts of rather public issues cause people such as myself to think twice about supporting CLEAR on a monetary basis, with membership etc, or that he will be replaced with a new leader who will not resort to these types of tactics.

Reynolds has said that he won’t hold a leadership election until 2015. When the executive committee passed a vote of no confidence in Reynolds last year, he responded by illegally sacking the executive committee, turning it into his own personal dictatorship. He genuinely believes that there isn’t anyone else who is capable of doing the job that he does… and to be honest, I kind of agree with that statement. Nobody has ever made so many ridiculous cock-ups, and no campaigner standing in an election on a single issue cannabis manifesto has won such a low percentage of the vote as Reynolds.

he’s a tyrant and he was never elected as leader of CLEAR – I was a member and I never got asked to vote, even when they held their fake vote of confidence – Reynalds was elected leader of LCA by about 30 people – I was a member there too – he promised to re-register the LCa as a party, not to change it all and destroy it and the principles we all stood on. I not member now, may join again if that man quits and also derek needs to be booted out, knew him for years, trouble-causer, jealous, always putting others down.

I’ve been thinking about this and I want to formally take this issue of an impersonated post up with you as owner of this blog. I have now changed my password but it seems my account here was hacked in some way. As I say I did not make that post above to this blog, it was made to a facebook page of an acquaintance of yours.

no-one has hacked whatever it is that you say has been hacked. You have a Gravatar assigned to your email address, so when anyone posts a comment using your email address, WordPress automatically searches Gravatar for that email and posts the image associated with it. It is completely automatic and does not require anyone to have the password to your, well, anything.

But you did write those words yes Derek? Maybe it’s just a friend of yours helping you spread your message. Do you not stand by those words? Or do you just stand by those words but you dont want many people to know what you really think?

I think you have hit the nail on the head Ex cLEAR member,if a so called “web master” does not know what or how a gravitar works,then he is a master at nothing…He should call himself “master” defender of the indefensible instead,he has experience of that…lots of it huh Dwerk

1. Because I think that your comment was shameful and embarrassing for you in claiming I’m obsessed with Peter Reynolds for explaining publicly how *he’s* interfering in *my* life, and conveniently ignoring the fact that this post would never have been written if he had just left me alone instead of sniffing round my life for dirt. I am content for more people to read your comment and see the level of discourse with which senior CLEAR members respond to serious documented allegations that their leader has been using CLEAR resources to try to hunt down people he dislikes by informing strangers that he’s a journalist called James Clay.

2. Because to delete the comment would mean that all consequent comments would be lacking context and I hate it when that happens. You have clearly stated that the comment was not posted by you, and that the comment was a repost of something you had posted to Facebook. No-one reading this thread is therefore going to assume that the original message is actually you, so there’s no reason for me to either take it down or explain what you yourself already have. Someone impersonated Greg last year and all those posts are still there: http://www.sarahmcculloch.com/opinion/2012/peter-reynolds-rampant-sexism-aimed/#comment-55288

And in your other email to me, you asked for an apology. Get real. Anyone can impersonate anyone else on comment systems that allow comments without requiring an account, which is most blogs in the world. For most part, it doesn’t happen and people respect other people’s handles. In the few cases it doesn’t work out, the rest of the world comments underneath that they didn’t write the comment, and moves on. I suggest you do the same.

Firstly, you seem content to reproduce comments posted by impersonators, that is simply despicable and as you are clearly happy to do this the creditability of your blog is in ruins and demonstrably so.

So what if it destroys the thread? Many of the comments here relate to my impersonated post anyway in one way or another.

My comment was not intended for you blog, it was a reply to a comment on Facebook. You do not have my permission to reproduce it here and I object to you doing so. You have published something you have no right to publish, you are responsible for that and as such you owe me an apology at the very least. I have also asked you in a private e-mail to help identify the person who posted it by releasing the IP of the sender, which I think I am entitled to ask you to do as publisher of this blog. You have not responded to my reasonable request for that assistance. Why?

Sarah, I really do not care to get involved in your nasty personal campaign against this individual which you have been conducting for about a year now, that, I think, is clear from the thrust of the comment posted under my name and from the other exchanges we have had in the past.

For the record I have also asked Sarah to report this incident to the police if she doesn’t want to provide me with the IP. I will co-operate with them. Make no mistake, Sarah is in the wrong here and she knows it because so far she has refused to act on my complaint.

Well thanks to Peter Reynold’s legacy, I’d be very surprised if the police take any complaints from Clear-exec members seriously.
Not that they’d take this issue seriously in any case, considering what it is.

Didn’t Peter Reynolds once pretend to be Victor Hamilton in a posting on Derekus’s blog, making unfounded accusations that he was a paedo? Or, do we think was it just coincidence, that Derekus himself, noted that the comments were being made from Petey’s IP address?

Or, does that not count as, ‘a case of imersonation’?

Or maybe, Cannabis has fuddled my brain, and I just inventerated it all up with rigid thinking and obsesserationing? (it hasn’t; I haven’t).

I’m struggling here to make sense of who is whom. Regardless, Petey, Derek and the rest of the exec must be busy, what with a the lawsuits they are preparing and serving, it must be like LA Law in the CLEAR(ly taking the piss) offices.

ha ha, type derek williams into google, there’s loads of them – does this one think hes only person that can use his name – I think Ill change mine to his too, on internet blogs and facebook you can use whatever name you want – what a plonker

lol – gravatar not working as expected. As a software testing professional, I can tell you know that any gravatar related charges won’t stand up in court if there are current known oustanding bugs with the gravatar system not updating when you want it too.

Robots may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Robots have seen things you people wouldn’t believe.
Robots are Your Plastic Pal Who’s Fun To Be With.
Robots have shiny metal posteriors which should not be bitten.

Sarah has been nothing but open, honest and candid and has at all times backed up her articles with evidence and reasoned judgement.

She has fully expalined why she allowed the ‘fake’ post to remain and I for one fully concur with her decision and the reasoning behind that decision.

As for you… well, your postings read more and more like they were written by a drunken lunatic, with the passing of each day, it’s got a name in my house – The Reynolds Effect.

Anyway, how about answering the question asked above, about the time Pedro impersonated Victor Hamilton in a posting on your blog and made some pretty unpleasant remarks about you – instead of blustering and making hollow threats of legal action, because somebody impersonated you on a blog (Oh, the ironing), something which the blog owner has already dealt with fully above.

I love watching Derek making a tit of himself in the public arena, he’s almost as much fun as der Führer himself.

Derek, let me get this right, …

– Someone posted a comment under your name using the exact words you had typed.
– The Gravatar system is flawed in that anybody can use your email address, and it will post your avatar.
– Sarah, published the comment, since unless she went to the bother of checking the IP address and knew what your IP address was, there would be no way on earth she would know the comment was not from you.
– You, unaware how the Gravatar system works, thought your account had been hacked, you admitted you did write those words, but did not publish them on this blog.
– Sarah explained to you how the Gravatar system works and it is clear to anybody with half a brain the above post attributed to you, while they were your words, were reproduced by someone else using your email address.
– You demand the comment is removed and Sarah hands over the IP address of the person who left it.

It seems clear to me you want the comment removed for a couple of reasons:

– Upon reflection, you realise your blind defence of your Führer is making you look stupid.
– Some of your Führer’s insanity has rubbed off on you and you think by huffing and puffing and making threats you can get stuff removed from the Internet that makes you look foolish.

Sarah is quite right to keep up the comment, since they were originally your words, and it is now obvious to anybody who reads the thread that someone else copied words you had originally written elsewhere. She is also quite right to not release IP addresses of people who post on her blog to you. I’m still laughing at your suggestion to Sarah go to the police herself. Can you imagine it, actually going to the police and saying here is the IP address of someone who posed as Derek Williams and republished word for word a comment Mr Williams made on Facebook – please investigate. I can just imagine the police dropping everything to follow that one up.

CLEAR have a reputation of reporting people to the police and I’m sure cannabis consumers who might comment on Sarah’s blog will be most reassured she is never going to hand over IP addresses to such a questionable organisation.

But they were your words Derek, so what’s the problem? Do you no longer stand by those words you wrote only a few days ago in response to the revelation that PR had been caught out posing as an investigative journalist called James Clay trying to dig dirt on one of his critics.

Derek: “I did write those words, but I wrote them where I thought that few people would see them. I really don’t want the public to know what I really think about the situation, so I’m going to whine and whine like a little schoolboy. I’m also going make it clear that I know very little about how the internet works. The same can be said for diplomacy and critical thinking. I expect Sarah to call the police to let them know that someone pretended to be me on the internet, using my own words no less! Sarah is at fault because… because… well, just because…. because I cannot be blamed for what I wrote can I?”

What an amazingly small internet it is, always the same people talking amongst themselves on their mates forums. Meanwhile, in the real world away from this clique in a country of – what is it, 60,000,0000 people? …

Interestingly although I haven’t deleted any cookies, the avatar has now gone when using firefox.

What’s also interesting is that all the other posts I’ve made have come up as “NR23Derek”, the name I chose to use in this forum. Now I’ve closed that gravatar account the fake post is credited to my real name.

Anyway, it’s still there despite Sarah knowing I did not post it and do not want it on here and she has refused to help me identify the impersonator.

It’s like watching a caveman transported to 1980, trying to program a VHS recorder, to tape the wrestling.

The issue of the ‘fake’ post has been dealt with already; accept it, and maybe think about what you write in future, instead of trying to bully your way to redaction, much like your hero and master Pedro does.

Stamp your little penfold-feet all you want, it doesn’t appear to be achieveing anything, other than making you look more pathetic than you already did.

Anyway, how about answering some questions while you’re here?

So, once again, what are your thoughts and feelings regarding the time Peter Reynolds posted on your blog, impersonating Victor Hamilton, and called you a paedo?

What do you think about Peter Reynolds impersonating as a journalist called James Clay.

What do you think about Peter Reynolds impersonating as a Dr called Carla Margam

I am only posting in this blog because a post has been made here in my name which I did not write. It is still there despite Sarah Mcculloch being aware that it is not a post I have made. Your explanation as to why it is still there is not acceptable to me Sarah, you are quite clearly in the wrong by keeping it online.

The first post apparently from me – that actually bears my name and originally carried my Gravatar ID – was not posted by me. It should be removed and an apology made.

Sarah, why are you continuing to keep that post online when you know it was posted by an imposter?

“What I don’t get with people like her and the other small group of people who constantly snipe is why they are so utterly obsessed with trying to attack PR, attacking him is the most important thing in their lives it seems. How they can be so obsessed with anything is frankly beyond me – and you’re not that much better given your enthusiasm to spread this rubbish.

In my world, I have many many issues, I don’t have time to dig loads of crap about individuals. Not only don’t I have time, I don’t have the motivation to do so, I’m just not that petty, I’m just not obsessive. Indeed I don’t hold grudges against people, I move on and if need be, ignore them.

What do I think about it? I think it’s petty at best, at worst a deliberate attempt to undermine a cannabis law reform campaign – and that I do object to.

Handbags at dawn indeed. Pathetic, and somewhat sad.

I’ll say one more thing though, which I do find worrying and here I’m quite serious. One of the effects of cannabis prohibition supporters are often keen to promote is, they claim, that cannabis produces just this sort of obsession, rigid thinking if you like. I have always dismissed that as just another prohib claim, but from what I’ve seen over the past year I’m not so sure now and I do find that depressing.

PR and CLEAR are sure as hell not your enemy. Put you time and effort into fighting the people who really are out to get you.”

Is that the post you want deleting? Shame on you.

It’s kind of there forever now, Del.

People can see what you wrote, and the words are no longer under your control.

That post was not put here by me, yet it carries my ID. Yes, I wrote it and anyone is free to quote it and debate it on any forum they want. But they are not free to post it under my identity, pretending I did so.

It is the fact that I have been impersonated on this blog and that the blog owner, Sarah Mcculloch is aware that the post is an impersonation yet has refused to remove it I am objecting to. That it should have been removed is not really in doubt.

If you wist to discuss my take on any issue, that’s up to you, I doubt I would find you interesting enough to repay the compliment however.

NR23Derek, Sarah does indeed have intelligent friends unlike you who only has a sad, homophobic, racist for a friend. Carry on with your efforts Sarah, you are doing good work exposing these idiots, perhaps you should do a blog entry on the one man show that is ukcia and report on the owner Derek Williams? well overdue for an objective critical review imho

Right, I hope this is going to be my last word on this issue, because this conversation is just daft.

Of course I am not going to take the comment down. As I explained before, no-one after reading this thread is going to seriously think that you posted the message, and the content is by your own admission, your own actual words. What would I even tell a cop? “Someone took a message that Derek Williams wrote on Facebook and posted it under his name and email on my standard WordPress open commenting system – he commented within hours so everyone knows that it wasn’t actually him, but he still thinks that the person involved should be [what? Spoken to? Arrested? Spanked?] by the police.” There’s no crime here, any confusion over who is who is now crystal clear, and saying “You know you’re wrong, you’re know you’re in the wrong, JUST TAKE DOWN THE COMMENT ALREADY” is hardly going to change my mind when I’ve provided much better reasons for my actions.

And you’re angry about your own words being spread around the internet? I’m pretty angry that you tried to get me into trouble with my hosting provider, Derek. I’m really quite angry about that. My hosting provider called you a “crank” btw, Derek. Maybe that’s because you sent him this:

Originally I had a Gravatar identity, which this post hijacked, I have now
closed that account.

The owner of the blog, Sarah Muculloch, is aware that the post is an
impersonation and that I did not post it there. I have contacted her by
e-mail and made repeated comments to the blog (NR23Derek), but she refuses
to remove the post. Is this a breach of the conditions of use? If so I would
like to report it.

Derek Williams”

You didn’t even have any idea about whether leaving people copy-pasting your own words into a comment box and putting down your email was a breach of my service user conditions, but you sent a fishing email anyway. You should be utterly ashamed of yourself Derek. And you should feel incredibly stupid as well, for telling a web developer that my blog “hijacked” a gravatar. You should feel so very, very stupid.

So, I’m going to respond to some of your choicer comments, and then I hope that we can wrap this discussion up, because this is cutting into the time I usually spend looking at funny cat videos.

“the creditability of your blog is in ruins and demonstrably so”

The “credibility” of my blog does not depend on you saying it is credible. Your own efforts here have not exactly covered you in glory.

“Many of the comments here relate to my impersonated post anyway in one way or another.”

Yeah, you really don’t notice the irony of the way that this thread had 5 comments before you turned up and it now has 71 and counting, all about you, and the way you keep saying that we’re the sad obsessive ones?

“You have published something you have no right to publish, you are responsible for that and as such you owe me an apology at the very least.”

You published a public comment on someone else’s public Facebook profile, which you could reasonably expect the public to read – and you object to it being public? Sure, go tell it to a lawyer.

“If the IP is really mine, it is my property.” and “You have not responded to my reasonable request for that assistance. Why?”

Because it’s not reasonable, it’s insane. An IP address is a mostly randomly assigned number by which your computer connects to the internet, set by your ISP. You, or they, can change it at any time. You don’t “own” it, anymore than you own your mobile number or your car registration plate.

“BTW Sarah my Gravatar ID is now blocked and has been for 12 hours, so why is my photo and name ‘NR23Derek’ still showing? You are responsible, sort it out please.”

Your gravatar was appearing on your screen because your internet cache, on your browser, on your computer, had not yet updated. It was absolutely nothing to do with me. A “gravatar” is the image which appears associated with your email address. Your name is whatever you put into the box on the comment you are posting. If you change your handle, none of the previous names you have used will automatically change.

“So there’s a problem with Gravatar? Not my problem, I don’t use it myself. This is Sarah’s blog, she is responsible.”

Gravatar accounts are automatically associated with WordPress accounts. Clearly at some point, you started a WordPress blog (perhaps UKCIA), and uploaded the image of yourself that you have been plastering around the internet every time you have commented on a website that allows gravatars, and apparently, to judge by your comments earlier, believed that this was happening because you were “logged in”. I am not responsible for the fact that you a) did not know that gravatars exist, b) that you had one, and c) this is the first blog on which you have taken exception to your image appearing.

If someone wrote to me, as Greg did, to say that he was being impersonated on WordPress, I would look at the IP addresses on the posts concerned and confirm publicly, as I did for Greg, which posts were impersonations and which ones were not. In this case, this is unnecessary because you have stated very firmly, endlessly, incessantly, that the first post is not yours. No-one could mistake the first post as being from you.

“The post I’m complaining about was not made by me but is still online. Why?”

Because of the reasons I explained originally which I presume your eyes glided past so you could post more comments complaining. You blustering that my reasons are not acceptable to you does not mean that suddenly I have to come up with more or take the comment down.

“What an amazingly small internet it is, always the same people talking amongst themselves on their mates forums. Meanwhile, in the real world away from this clique in a country of – what is it, 60,000,0000 people? …”

It’s not extraordinary when you consider that there are people on Facebook linking their friends to this discussion and saying “Hahahaha, look at what a massive tit Derek is making of himself.” I’ve personally recounted this highly amusing “Let’s blame Sarah for technology I don’t understand” merry-go-round to everyone I’ve met in the last 48 hours.

“Make no mistake, Sarah is in the wrong here and she knows it because so far she has refused to act on my complaint.”

Or maybe, Derek, contrary to your oft-repeated assertions, I have friends and an active life away from the computer. As it happens, I spent Friday night playing poker and watching films, and had a long lunch the next day, followed by much socialising. But it does occur to me to judge by the way that you send me constant emails when I don’t reply instantly to your latest complaint that you genuinely appear to think that I have nothing better to do with my time than sit at my computer and wait for your call, and if I don’t respond it’s deliberate. So I did think of you Derek, calling me sad and guilty as you imagined me sobbing at my keyboard with the shame while I was actually pillaging, plundering and, otherwise pilfering my weasley black guts out, so I got my friends to agree to take a picture of our awesome day:

Derek, did you read her reply? She’s already answered your request. She’s already stated the reasons why she thinks the blogpost should stay up. She has very patiently answered almost every point. It is pointless asking questions or raising points that have already been answered.

Complaining to her ISP was a level of stupidity that I personally didn’t think that you would succumb to.

Anyone coming to this blogpost will understand that you didn’t write that message. However you admit to writing those words. We understand that Derek. You’ve actually spent a lot of time getting that message through to everyone. While you might need the same points explained multiple times to you, the same is not to be said of most other people. We get it. We understand.

But bravo for kicking up a hissy-fit to try to distract yourself from actually addressing the points in the original blog post, or the points raised since. You are a master of waffle. You should have been a civil servant imho.

The irony is of course Sarah’s blog is a criticism of PR impersonating someone who doesn’t exist. Then she goes and allows her blog to be used by someone impersonating someone who does exist. Honestly, you couldn’t make this up.

Please remove that reply Sarah. I did not put it there and do not want it displayed under my name as if I had posted it.

If it’s ironic that this post is about Peter Reynolds impersonating someone while Sarah allows someone to impersonate you in the comments, and you think it is unacceptable that someone impersonated you, is it not also unacceptable that Peter Reynolds impersonated a journalist at all by your own standards?

What a [tsk] you are proving yourself to be Derwick,Is there no end to the cLEAR Exec members informing on people ,be it to the poLICE or otherwise and going behind folks backs? In the circle I “move” in ,you would just go under the name of a Snide,but I am sure you are more than aware of this, especially after your steadfast support of your racist/bigoted leader for over a year now…How’s that going by the way? But more to the point I love the fact of you coming over here with your ….”comments”(whining)..It has made for some much needed light relief and has truly shone a light on You…For sure…..(sigh)

Derek Williams got pissed and posted on here but when he sobered up Peter Reynolds told him to get it taken down ‘or else’ so Derek Williams then threatens to report Sarah to the police

Is that the gist? pretty pathetic behaviour

Is this what he wanted removed because to be honest he shouldn’t post things when drunk

He wrote this
————————–

“Derek Williams January 22, 2013 at 9:53 am

What I don’t get with people like her and the other small group of people who constantly snipe is why they are so utterly obsessed with trying to attack PR, attacking him is the most important thing in their lives it seems. How they can be so obsessed with anything is frankly beyond me – and you’re not that much better given your enthusiasm to spread this rubbish.

In my world, I have many many issues, I don’t have time to dig loads of crap about individuals. Not only don’t I have time, I don’t have the motivation to do so, I’m just not that petty, I’m just not obsessive. Indeed I don’t hold grudges against people, I move on and if need be, ignore them.

What do I think about it? I think it’s petty at best, at worst a deliberate attempt to undermine a cannabis law reform campaign – and that I do object to.

Handbags at dawn indeed. Pathetic, and somewhat sad.

I’ll say one more thing though, which I do find worrying and here I’m quite serious. One of the effects of cannabis prohibition supporters are often keen to promote is, they claim, that cannabis produces just this sort of obsession, rigid thinking if you like. I have always dismissed that as just another prohib claim, but from what I’ve seen over the past year I’m not so sure now and I do find that depressing.

PR and CLEAR are sure as hell not your enemy. Put you time and effort into fighting the people who really are out to get you.”
————————————-

Personally,I think Stuart has a point,maybe you should have a toke, then you can be a “cannabis using [tsk]”…Either way ,your idiocy is well displayed numerous time in these comments…Fair do’s thogh Del,its been ..amusing,to say the least…

But you ARE a non-cannabis using [tsk] Derek. You have admitted that you have not smoked cannabis for over a decade. From those who remember your smoking days, you didn’t handle it that well.

Regarding your comments here, you are displaying exactly the same annoying behaviour that made your involvement with the Green party untenable for all persons involved. I’m surprised you’ve lasted so long within the cannabis community, but when I see which castle you are bunkered up in, all I can do is laugh.

I get how amazing the amount of comments this has caused, yes Sarah. As I say, all because you refused to take that fake post down, it’s your fault, not mine.

I don’t like bullying though, which you seem to regard as “free speech”, but I had to chuckle at being accused of “admitting” I don’t use cannabis. Sorry, but that does make me laugh – although it hasn’t been over a decade I should point out, best bit of one though. Yeah, it’s a fair cop, I don’t use cannabis.

Still, it demonstrates quite nicely the sort of people you appeal to with your writing though, I hope you’re proud of your following.

Like I say, if you’d taken that post down as you should have done, this whole mess wouldn’t have happened.

Are you talking about the fuss made by Peter Reynolds trying to take down any mention of this James Clay incident from facebook, getting people probated on facebook for sharing the PoliticsUK article, and for him getting soundcloud to remove the audio recording of the call? Because that takes a LOT of effort Derek.

As for people insulting you, what else is left when you have responded to this blog nearly 30 times, yet are refusing to engage in any kind of discussion? Sarah was right to call you out on your trolling yesterday, and I notice you haven’t denied it. I also notice that you took no offence to me calling you “a deluded bell-end”.

Hi Derek only just read this blog and have to say that it looks like a false flag operation hence bringing you into a debate you cared not to engage in, the more i read this and Sarah’s remarkable refusal to take down which is obviously a a fake post regardless if they are your words or not is astounding, so why wouldn’t Sarah take this fake imposter post down? maybe it would spoil da plan dan!!!!

Now wish I never read this blog LOL…. Sarah is an intelligent person, if she cant see what is happening then i have to wonder if she is actually complicit???

and what good does any of this does in getting the laws changed?

[On account of the fact that this comment is supposedly by El Gato, but the email address, IP address, and writing style are all different from his previous comments, I strongly suspect that this comment is an impersonation and hence will not be responding to it unless I receive confirmation from the real EL Gato, whom I have emailed, that he did in fact post this. I enjoy the potential irony of having someone accuse me of a false flag operation while running one themselves. – Sarah]

Derek Williams isn’t going to talk about this any more. To make sure that is absolutely clear to everyone, he will be posting on an hourly basis here to reiterate the point. He simply doesn’t have time to engage this waste of thought and effort, as he will be reminding everyone over and over and over again in perpetuity, in order to preserve his precious recreational hours.

Has it never even occurred to you (Sarah) that the pretend journalist involved actually PLANTED the clear telephone number? I could ring someone up and pretend to be a journo.. plant a few suspicions in their minds as to my identity then bingo, finish it off with leaving them the clear telephone number.. GOD ITS SO SIMPLE and yet the first thing you do is give all high and mighty with the perceived victimisation.. JOB DDONE by whoever as they seem to be able to pull your strings in the easiest of ways.

Believe me it’s not difficult to leave false trails, or you have is he said she said unless they actually recorded the call and can prove it came from the clear telephone number, then all you have is nothing but a show of vindictiveness and cant wait to stick the boot in.

Honestly you lot here are the enemies of cannabis smokers be they recreational or medical, you lot are a gift to the prohibitionists, and the enemy of everyone who is serious about drug law reform, egos are going to be hurt by that statement but its true, the more you launch attacks the more pathetic you lot appear and one really does then ask what your motivation really is because it is clear you are not interested in reform but sticking the boot into another reform campaign.

You could have went about this in a rational investigative manner but no, you chose to sling mud. Nice ethics.

[On account of the fact that this comment is supposedly by El Gato, but the email address, IP address, and writing style are all different from his previous comments, I strongly suspect that this comment is an impersonation and hence will not be responding to it unless I receive confirmation from the real EL Gato, whom I have emailed, that he did in fact post this. I enjoy the potential irony of having someone accuse me of a false flag operation while running one themselves. – Sarah]

Hi Sarah. Er, I still get “This item has been deleted because of a possible violation of our terms of service!”. In both firefox and Opera.

Meanwhile you’re still publishing that post under my name which i didn’t make I see, Tsk. I really don’t like being impersonated like this you know, it’s very dishonest of you.

BTW Kev, I build and provide tech support recording studios, fit out edit suites and stuff like that, they all use computers you see. IT means a bit more than playing with forums you know. Anyone for Logic? Probably not you I guess.

What silly [tsk] Derwek and Reynolds are. They think they can get embarrassing stuff permanently eradicated from the Internet, you’d have thought they would have learned by now, after the Way Back Machine incident, which proved Führer was lying when he said his ‘evil Jews’ comment was a forgery … someone should tell them how the Internet works.

It’s the pack instinct El_Gato – added to which Sarah’s found an audience that eggs her on. Her refusal to take the fake post down is an example of pure vindictiveness. No serious journalist would pull a stunt like that, not even a Daily Mail one.

I think Derek Williams has retreated to the CLEAR bunker. He knows that there is no way to excuse Reynolds’ actions. He waited until Reynolds got the Liveleak recording removed before he pretended to check out the recording (not realising that it was already being uploaded to Iceland).

Derek won’t address any of the points, as to do so, it would disrupt his cognitive dissonance and his passionate love and support for Peter Reynolds. Without CLEAR, Derek would be a nobody again, and he won’t be able to pretend that he wields influence and authority.

My only reason for post here is because Sarah allowed a fake post to be published under my name. I have no interest in debating any of the allegations of using a false identity on a blog that knowingly publishes comments made under a false identity as this one does.

I see I finally made it onto that hate site though because of my comments here. Small world, isn’t it.

So you are admitting that you are simply trolling Derek? You were eager to listen to the recording at the exact moment that Reynolds informed you that he had taken it down from liveleak. It’s now hosted in Iceland. You have hours upon hours to waste writing pedantic, waffly posts without actually addressing any points (aka trolling), so surely you can spare a minute and a half to listen to your beloved dear leader make an absolute tit of himself.

Talking about people making a tit of themselves, you didn’t exactly leave anyone any choice but to ridicule you for your actions here ;)

I hope you have your press mobile charged up. I have a feeling it’s going to be quite busy over the next few days. Will you field the calls, or will you just pass them onto Reynolds?

It is a TRUTH site that Derek and PR’ick hate because it tells the truth and their pathetic fake threats of legal action did not intimidate the Icelandic web hosts into shutting it down.

What do you say about the leader of CLEAR falsely claiming to the Icelandic Wordpress that I was being investigated by the Polish police and a European arrest warrant was about to be issued in an attempt to scare them into taking Peter Reynolds Watch off from their servers? I’d be really interested to hear what you have to say about that Derek.

The farce is strong in this one. What kind of narcissistic auto-anus-dweller thinks it’s a good idea to grass up enemies to the police on one buttock, and on the other buttock, complain about the police at every opportunity?

Thank you Kevin for making it clear to a wider audience that Sarah has indeed allowed a post using my identity – as you say, under my name and posted with my e-mail address so as to bring up my ex-gravatar avatar.

Sarah publishes posts under a forged identity, that is a matter of fact. I do wonder how many other posts here are forged?

>>
You have quoted me out of context, which anybody who reads my original comment will say.
>>

I included the link in case you tried that one, I hope readers will go there and see the stuff you write.

I’m quite enjoying all this actually Kev, it’s my way of dealing with intimidation because intimidation only works if the victim tries to hide it. By all means, insult and threaten away, this can run and run.

I am only making one point in all this. I want Sarah to remove a comment she knows to have been made falsely using my identity. You have helped me to make that point, like I say, thanks.

Thank you for providing a link to Peter Reynolds Watch, where people can learn the truth about Peter, and now the truth about you too.

You’ll be pleased to know many people do go to read the stuff I write, with many being directed from Facebook and now also from finding the site on Google. Type in Peter Reynolds CLEAR to Google and see what comes up :-)

I just had a look at the our stats and I’m very happy to inform you Derwek, that Peter Reynolds Watch had 1378 unique visitors to the site in the last 24 hours and earlier today there were as many as 195 people viewing the site.

Yeah not a problem Kev. As I say, thanks for confirming my story that Sarah posted a comment here under my name that wasn’t written by me, which means she knowingly publishes false comments. So 195 people today have read that and hopefully some will have been directed here through your link.

Thing is, if I had written this explanation of what happened on CLEAR, you would have just mocked it. Now I can quote you as confirmation that Sarah publishes fake posts.

No Derek – 1378 unique visitors viewed Peter Reynolds Watch in the last 24 hours. 195 was the highest number of people viewing the site at any one given time today.

We get fan mail too you know and people look forward to the next instalment, though you and PR’ick should really be given the credit, as you write the script of this comedy; we are mere commentators on the farce that is Peter Reynolds and CLEAR.

Sarah did NOT post the comment under your name, someone else reposted YOUR words defending your Führer. It was made perfectly clear they were your words, but someone else re-posted what you had written. You wanted it removed because perhaps you realised your words made you look like a tit, not that this stopped you posting even more comments on here making you look an even bigger tit.

Everyone else gets it Derwek, you are the only person who is too dumb to get it.

Again, you have twisted my words to try to make a very poor point, but I’m afraid Delboy, once more for you it’s an EPIC FAIL!

But Derek, you are forgetting that YOU WROTE THOSE WORDS. Admittedly you wrote them somewhere else and someone copied them here, but they are relevant to this article. I know it must be embarrassing to have your true feelings exposed for the whole world to see, but surely it can’t be as embarrassing as repeatedly trolling the comments section with the same noise?

>>
Admittedly you wrote them somewhere else and someone copied them here
>>

Under my name and identity. That is the only point I am complaining about. Sarah has knowingly published a comment made in my name by someone else. That is what is unacceptable. Good heavens Stuart, even Kev understands the point I’m making.

As I said before, I don’t mind being quoted, but I do object to being impersonated, as would you.

You might be 59 Derek, but you haven’t grown up at all during those 59 years have you? We get it. We got it hours after that comment was posted. Anyone coming to this blog will realise that someone copied your words from facebook and posted them on here.

We get it. We understand. It is a shame that you don’t understand the reasons why Sarah won’t remove that comment, despite her repeatedly explaining to you why.

If you get it clearly Sarah Mccullouch doesn’t. I did not make that post and I object to her pretending I did, so why is it still there? It’s very simple Sarah, take that imposter post down, it’s in my name and I did not post it.

We all get that you are making a tit of yourself Derek, I don’t think Sarah or anybody else needs to explain again why your words defending your Führer are on the comments page of this blog.

I notice how you deliberately do not answer my question asking you what do you think about Peter Reynolds telling lies that I’m being investigated by the Polish police and about to have a European arrest warrant issues against me. Now that was libellous, in this case it’s a shame suing is a rich man’s game.

That’s the third time I’ve asked you this, … no doubt it’ll be the third to you ignore it and instead bleat on like a little girl complaining that Sarah will not remove words that you actually wrote, since it is clear to all and sundry (apart from you) your words defending Führer Reynolds were simply reproduced he by someone without your permission.

Enough of that, let’s talk about Reynolds’ grassing of people to the police and fake legal threats. Why did PR say Interpol were about to arrest me?

I think I’m starting to undertsand you NR23Derek, maybe a little bit more clarification required though.

From what I understand, you as a former Commonweath heavyweight champion feel your good name isn’t being given the respect it deserves and having seen your fight with Lennox Lewis I’m certainly not going to be making that mistake.

Along a similar line to El_Gato Afortunado above, have you considered that maybe there is another Derek Williams out there that happens to have a very similar e-mail address as your own and they simply mistyped it?

I’ve heard rumours of a Derek Williams from Norfolk. He’s apparently a particularly odious little man with quite worrying obsessive behaviour that spends his days trolling the internet. Seems the most likely culprit to me. Since the site owner, the site host, the site users and the police have all failed to shed any light on the situation maybe your next point of call should be this guy?

It has been spelled out Christ knows how many times that Sarah did not post that comment written by you, it one someone unknown, who obviously felt it was important for the wider world to know what a tit you are, though I doubt anybody in their wildest dreams would have know how much entertainment you would provide complaining that somebody re-posted YOUR words … I love how you managed to get 137 comments on the thread …. making it quite clear someone else posted YOUR words on here, but like a spoilt child you are still demanding YOUR words are removed, because you didn’t actually give permission for YOUR idiotic words that you wrote to be reproduced on an Internet blog.

Instead of going round and round in circles about your comment, why don’t you respond to my question asking your thoughts about Reynolds falsely claiming I was under investigation by the Polish police and an international arrest warrant was about to be issued for me?

Sarah is the owner of this blog and is aware that the post was not made by me, she is therefore responsible for it being here. yes, my words but taken out of context and not referenced to source and falsely attributed to me.

I did not post that comment and I want it removed.

Sarah McCulluch is deliberately hosting fake comments on her blog, O object strongly when she does it to me. She has no right to do this and knows it is wrong.
Sarah McCullouch, why do you insist on keeping this comment you know I didn’t make online? Take it down please.

Derek It has come to my attention that you are impersonating yourself. I thought I was the only one who had a terrible line but it is clear now that your line is even worse. Maybe me, you, Derek and Peter should get together in a foursome and we can get to the bottom of this. With my investigative journalistic skills and your mastery of the intenet we can find out who is who.

I’m so confused Which Derek is the real one? All of the Dereks seem to have conflicting stories. This blog is supposed to be about me and what a clever journalist I am now Derek has hijacked the blog to make himself look clever. It’s not fair this was my party and Derek hasn’t mentioned me once it’s like he didn’t even read it. Is he trying to spoil my big day and steal all the glory.

So you’re a journalist eh? And a cleaver one even? Indeed, one that seems to take a great pride in uncovering someone impersonating a fake person? Then what is difficult to understand about my complaint here? My identity has been allowed to be posted by the owner of this blog on a comment I didn’t submit to the blog.

If Sarah McCullouch had simply acknowledged the impersonation of my identity and removed that post none of this would have happened and you would have been free to wallow in your glory.

She could have even re-posted the comments I made to the facebook thread in her name, quoting what I wrote but no, she insists on keeping that fraudulent post online, so I complain.

It’s quite simple James, the real Derek Williams wrote a plonker comment defending Peter Reynolds then some idiot pretending to be Derek Williams, using the handle NR23Derek, came along impersonating Derek Williams.

Can some one please explain what this Derek chap is banging on about? I see him pop up all over trolling his way around various web sites…I believe, both PR and this Derek should be completely ignored and the energy saved from that put towards NORML UK and the UKCSC…nothing will ever change other wise…peace

Goodness me, what a to-do!
Derek, from what I have read, it seems that your and Mr Reynolds have rather a lot of explaining to do.
Such a shame that the movement to free cannabis use up from the law is being seriously mismanaged and even damaged by folks like Mr Reynolds, who seems obsessed with himself. What we needed was a person obsessed with cannabis law reform, not with themselves.
For those of us seeking legal cannabis medicine, you are really making a pigs ear out of the job. You are damaging us, hurting us, forcing us to remain untreated or else on the wrong side of the law.
Its not about you two, its about cannabis law reform. That you fail to grasp this is evidence of both your incompetence and your self esteem. Both are super-massive black holes that have drained you of any credibility and also of any honor.
Please go away, and let someone with a real grasp of the issue take over.

HAHA. I found this link from the SU page. Derek is well known within college for being a tit too. I did a music course there and had many dealings with the idiot. His knowledge of IT can be written on the back of a postage stamp.

As a member of the Clear exec team, regardless of your complaint, do you have any comment at all on peters behaviour and claim to be james clay, having spoken to peter by telephone on several occasions, i certainly feel this is him? Does Clear have any official comment on any of the behaviour of Peter, or his continuing bullying of people, and removal and banning of facebook accounts when posts are made regarding Peters words and actions?
I have personally messaged you in the past to ask you to clarify why in the past you sent me messages telling me i was in serious danger if i was to attend a hemp fair in London, you refused to tell me who made these threats, but were giving me friendly warning that i faced serious danger.
You havent replied to my message, and you havent replied to the people here, who were here to make comment on Peters latest escapade, pretending to be a journalist called James clay, I would also like to ask what your opinion is on this, and that of Carla Magnam.
I presume your refusal to answer the questions posed by others before me, is because you either agree with Mr Reynolds actions, or you are so ashamed you cannot speak about it?
I await your comment…

As another fifty comments have passed since I last commented, this is on course for being my most viewed Peter Reynolds post ever, and everyone is losing track under Derek’s tide of incontinence, just a few points:

1. I acknowledged that Derek apparently did not post the original comment in the first 15 or so comments. Derek appears to have started believing that because it’s inconceivable to him that you wouldn’t remove comments not posted by the person in the name of whom it has been posted, I must be denying that the post is an impersonation at all.

2. I explained why I would not be removing the post over a week ago. The impersonation has been exposed, therefore I need do nothing more to ensure people are not confused. In that time, someone else in this thread has likely been impersonated, and I have called this out as such. You will notice this a) I haven’t deleted the post, b) the entire dispute has taken up two comments, as opposed to Derek’s 150.

3. Derek appears to think, to judge by the way he has now posted on my blog over 40 times over the last twelve days with no more inventive content than his wide range of misspellings of my name, that he can bore me into compliance. I have therefore for the benefit of everyone published the rules under which this blog loosely operates:

You will note that “if you just bug me enough, and make enough “formal requests”, and post enough comments making the same two line statement over and over again, I will eventually do whatever you want”, is not one of those rules.

4. I do hope that after Derek has now spent the best part of two weeks engaging in self-admitting trolling of my blog, he will at least have the consistency to stop claiming he doesn’t have time to deal with our “petty obsessions” – he seems to have so much more time for this than I do.

Sarah….Perhaps it would help with all this controversy if we got an independant opinion…Say a county court judge or someone to compensate the aggrieved and impose suitable penalties on the guilty.I have stocked up with anti side splitting tape for when I read your defence

Sarah, a little advice so that you can never be accused of manipulating or documenting what you find online. Instead of taking a screenshot, take a web archived file. A web archived file is a offline scrollable piece of evidence that cannot be altered or manipulated ;>}